Thread Tools

**buddhaHybrid** · February 2nd, 11:47 AM

I hope you are kidding about the christo-conserv

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 3rd, 12:00 AM

Would I lie?

**toXic** · February 3rd, 10:16 PM

Well, can't vote for hillary either. She is a racist.

YouTube - Hillary Clinton is a racist

And obviously Obama is also. So I guess we will have to vote Republican again.

**mspainter** · February 4th, 02:15 PM

That video was taken out of context lol.

But really, we can't have Hillary in office.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 4th, 02:52 PM

Why?

Every person who says that inevitably doesn't know anything and can't back their statements up.

**Jinjiro** · February 4th, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Why?

Every person who says that inevitably doesn't know anything and can't back their statements up.

That's not a gross exaggeration or anything...

I do not support her determination to immediately bring home the troops. While I don't want to see the war go on forever there is certainly a time and place to do this. By being determined to bring them home as soon as she is elected, we are leaving Iraq open for more problems. It's like telling the other team exactly what you will do the next play. She also talks about opening communication with our enemies, such as our discussion with the Soviets during the Cold War. The problem here is a majority of our enemies do not care to talk, and will never want to. They care about us being dead, or us converting to Islam. That's it. It's naive of her to think she can walk in and change the way the world views the US.

Aside from this and many other reasons that I don't have the battery life to get into (on my laptop), the woman is a snake. I do not think she has a strong character, and I do not see her as having the attributes of a leader, especially of the US. She has a warped sense of reality, and I think it would be a dark day in American history if she were to be elected as the President of this nation. For all of Bush's faults, the fact is we have not had another attack on US soil since 9/11. If Hilary is elected, I am not sure how long that will remain true.

-Jin

**mspainter** · February 4th, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Why?

Every person who says that inevitably doesn't know anything and can't back their statements up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

That's not a gross exaggeration or anything...

I didnt even have to say anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

I do not support her determination to immediately bring home the troops. While I don't want to see the war go on forever there is certainly a time and place to do this. By being determined to bring them home as soon as she is elected, we are leaving Iraq open for more problems. It's like telling the other team exactly what you will do the next play. She also talks about opening communication with our enemies, such as our discussion with the Soviets during the Cold War. The problem here is a majority of our enemies do not care to talk, and will never want to. They care about us being dead, or us converting to Islam. That's it. It's naive of her to think she can walk in and change the way the world views the US.

Aside from this and many other reasons that I don't have the battery life to get into (on my laptop), the woman is a snake. I do not think she has a strong character, and I do not see her as having the attributes of a leader, especially of the US. She has a warped sense of reality, and I think it would be a dark day in American history if she were to be elected as the President of this nation. For all of Bush's faults, the fact is we have not had another attack on US soil since 9/11. If Hilary is elected, I am not sure how long that will remain true.

-Jin

The part about the troops coming immediately home is something I mainly stand against her for. There are other little things that come into play as well, such as there are a couple candidates who would better suit the job.

**Jinjiro** · February 4th, 03:31 PM

Even though I don't like the idea of pulling the troops out immediately, I am much more in favor of someone like Ron Paul, who at least has a strong plan for the border and national defense. He's pulling out of Iraq, but he's protecting us and reorganizing where our power lies in the world.

-Jin

**mspainter** · February 4th, 04:35 PM

I was backing Ron Paul in school today. Some kids wanted Barack, some wanted Hillary. Most didn't know who any of them were.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 4th, 08:03 PM

Ron Paul FTL.

Clinton and Obama are essentially the same candidate as far as positions go, thus my frustrations when someone only supports one or the other. This is, perhaps, the only situation where party's candidates are pretty much the same, so supporting the Democratic party is like supporting either one. Sure, there are some minute differences in their means, but they are hoping for the same results.

Pretty broad, but the meat and beans are there.

**Jinjiro** · February 4th, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Ron Paul FTL.

Clinton and Obama are essentially the same candidate as far as positions go, thus my frustrations when someone only supports one or the other. This is, perhaps, the only situation where party's candidates are pretty much the same, so supporting the Democratic party is like supporting either one. Sure, there are some minute differences in their means, but they are hoping for the same results.

Pretty broad, but the meat and beans are there.

Except they're nothing like each other.

Candidates take the expected party stances so that they get nominated. Granted they don't always have the exact same ideology, but generally two Democratic candidates have very similar policies. The fact is that once elected a politician will ALWAYS change their mind, for whatever reason. It's the decisions they make once elected that are most important. And that's where Clinton & Obama are so very different.

I see a strong, capable leader in Obama. Someone who is clear-thinking and intelligent, yet able to be tough when necessary. He's capable of quick decision making, and holds his ground. Clinton, on the other hand, is a spineless worm who gives Kerry a run for his money when it comes to 'flip-flopping.' I have no confidence in her decision making ability, and I think she is simply too weak to be President, woman or not. The differences between the two are night and day.

-Jin

***NYY*** · February 4th, 10:54 PM

Hillary=Mccain

**sNoW PIrAnHa** · February 4th, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Ron Paul FTL.

Clinton and Obama are essentially the same candidate as far as positions go

How's ignorance treating you?

Clinton was a former Barry Goldwater supporter and then there was the whole whitewater scandal. She's not getting my vote. Republicans are lucky enough to have Ron Paul, but he is pretty radical in his ideas (however logical and necessary they are).

***NYY*** · February 5th, 09:41 AM

Clinton is a political opportunist. Libs seemed to forget pretty quickly that she was on the board of directors for Wal Mart. People seem to forget that she supported war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE Bush "lied" to us. As soon as the wind changes directions, she hops on the other side of the fence and proclaims herself as anti war. She ran for senate in NY when she had absolutely no reason to. She was first lady of Arkansas, she went to college in Boston, she was born in Illinois... But she ran in NY (blue state).

I respect Obama infinitely more than Clinton. It's not just that I would never vote for her. I don't respect her, and think that she's a dirty, manipulative person.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 5th, 03:23 PM

That was a single vote NYY, and it has been discussed quite well and isn't really considered anymore. The positions which they say to hold are almost identical, get over it... that is why most democrats (which apparently most of you aren't) are not that passionate about which one wins the nomination--well, some are, but they won't be extremely disappointed if the other does.

**Jinjiro** · February 5th, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

The positions which they say to hold are almost identical, get over it... that is why most democrats (which apparently most of you aren't) are not that passionate about which one wins the nomination--well, some are, but they won't be extremely disappointed if the other does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

Except they're nothing like each other.

Candidates take the expected party stances so that they get nominated. Granted they don't always have the exact same ideology, but generally two Democratic candidates have very similar policies. The fact is that once elected a politician will ALWAYS change their mind, for whatever reason. It's the decisions they make once elected that are most important. And that's where Clinton & Obama are so very different.

I see a strong, capable leader in Obama. Someone who is clear-thinking and intelligent, yet able to be tough when necessary. He's capable of quick decision making, and holds his ground. Clinton, on the other hand, is a spineless worm who gives Kerry a run for his money when it comes to 'flip-flopping.' I have no confidence in her decision making ability, and I think she is simply too weak to be President, woman or not. The differences between the two are night and day.

Anyone who thinks they are identical is simply ignorant.

I mean, come on, one is a black man, the other is a white man.

-Jin

**buddhaHybrid** · February 5th, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

Anyone who thinks they are identical is simply ignorant.

I mean, come on, one is a black man, the other is a white man.

-Jin

Hahaha

I agree that their characters, etc all that bull****, are very different. I'm saying what they plan to do about the "BIG ISSUES! OMG" are pretty much the same. ...Obviously they aren't congruent in all aspects.

they would be an interesting ticket together though